callofdutyfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:76.235.135.82
About the M1911 I don't know who is right, but get it settled in the article's discussion page instead of having an edit war. If this cannot be resolved calmly and conclusively, I will simply remove that section from the page. Thank you. Imrlybord7 09:33, February 28, 2010 (UTC) http://www.gunshopfinder.com/springfield/PC9111.jpg This is a Springfield Armory Professional. http://www.rguns.net/Graphics/Handguns/SemiAuto/KimberWarrior-400.JPG This is a Kimber Warrior. There were two unfactual statements and an error of logic - saying that Kimber pistols haven't stainless barrel and bushings (which all of them do, and the Springfield Armory Professional does not (the barrel that is)) - saying that Kimbers do not have match-grade triggers (which they ALL do, though most of them have the three-hole lightweight aluminum trigger as shown, and others have higher grade skeletonized or solid triggers) - and considering that Kimbers are "a Kimber" and not "Kimber pistols", as Kimber has an entire series of handguns and is not one model. The in-game model does not have an integrated magwell as the Professional has, but does not have the 1913 rail as seen on the Warrior. The rear sight is identical in profile between the Professional, Warrior, and model - the Professional's is a Novak, most Springfields are, while the Warrior is a Meprolight Tactical Wedge. The stocks ("grips", as you all may call them) are identical to the Warrior's, while the Professional has wooden stocks from the factory. 09:48, February 28, 2010 (UTC) Well, I certainly believe you, but you should post this on the article's discussion page. The link to an article's discussion page is a tab toward the top right of the screen. Just make a new section on that talk page and post your above paragraph there; I'm sure that nobody will challenge the changes you've made if you do that. However, please keep in mind that this is the Call of Duty Wiki, not the Facts About Real Guns Wiki. It's fine to put in the occasional tidbit of information, but if you don't mind my saying, you're getting a little to into this, which is the whole reason that we don't fill the weapon pages with this type of information; it can cause arguments and is only tangentially related to Call of Duty. Imrlybord7 09:54, February 28, 2010 (UTC) Sorry: the pure lack of logic and outright incorrect statements, especially as Trivia, tend to do a bit more than annoy me, considering I'm an actual shooter and not a video game player. I get enough of people taking "facts" they've read/heard on the Internet and in video games as gospel in real life, and when seeing things like what I edited from people who obviously have zero idea what they're talking about - well, you get the idea. I'll do what you said. 09:57, February 28, 2010 (UTC) I completely understand. As a bit of a CoD programming nut, I hate it when people post incorrect information about weapons/perks/attachments etc. But if you don't mind my asking, why are you editing here if you don't play video games? We appreciate all constructive contributions, of course, but I'm just curious. Imrlybord7 10:00, February 28, 2010 (UTC) "We appreciate all constructive contributions, of course" < basically this, and because of reasons stated above: it's a huge peeve of mine when people start spouting absolute crap they've read on the Internet etc and I try to - even if it may be utterly futile - do my best to lower what people see of firearms bullshit so that they won't repeat it and think they know what they're talking about. 10:05, February 28, 2010 (UTC) Hey man, we've gotta do what we can to fight against ignorance (on this wiki and everywhere else). I can totally appreciate you doing your part. So thank you. Imrlybord7 10:07, February 28, 2010 (UTC)